"One example of wealth gap: Black unemployment is up 25.4% under Obama. That causes more dependency, but it is also evidence of failure."

This is clear evidence of what Michael Savage has called the strategy of the left including the great ONE:

"trickle up poverty".

""Republicans MUST...address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle."

Well, the Repulbicans might win without specifically addressing the middle class per se or the wealth gap.However, if they wanted to *crush!#*+*!!! the Dems they can IMHO do so only addressing these issues.

Can you imagine if repubs can convince the middle of the roadsters how much Dems are hurting them and their lot in life with big gov and spending and taxation?I think many of this group are unconvinced they don't need big daddy to help them with their mortgages, their kids schooling, electric bills, etc.

I have no problem opening the spiggets so the wealthier more succesful can thrive and thus help the economy as a whole but we need a real level playing field and the trust the pols are making them stay honest and not just ripping the rest of us off. (I guess I am in dreamland on this point however)

I think the Dems clearly recognize their need to cling onto the middle class when they attempted to make the strikes in Wisconsin not a union issue but "an attack on the middle class". They tried unsuccesfully (I think) to try to generalize the strike to the entire middle class not just *gov* employees.

[I predicted Obama will not be the Dem. nominee.CCP asked who else?GM previously brought out the name of Evan Bayh]

Obviously a centrist won't bring out the energy of the activist wing of the party, but I had the chance to hear Bayh interviewed on conservative radio and he was very thoughtful, articulate and well-spoken. On Libya, he laid out a nice explanation of how none of the alternatives facing Obama including doing nothing were good ones, which is true. Laura Ingraham confronted him on Obamacare, saying that his one vote could have stopped it. He said it was a 50/50 choice to him and decided to vote yes and hope to fix what is wrong in the bill instead of voting no and losing what he thought was right in the bill. An unacceptable answer to me, but probably right on the pulse of what mainstream Democrats if there are any, not far leftists, think today. On fiscal matters, he said that is where he parts with Dem leadership and was about as strong on spending reductions, deficits and entitlement reform specifically as any serious, elected Republican.

Bayh is not running, but the scenario where someone like that gets through the process is where Obama first drops considerably further in approval, second gets challenged hard from the left with more than one challenger - pulling the weakened President to the left (or out), third Republicans find some momentum with a candidate to the right, leaving the need and temptation for a Dem to challenge from the middle, and fourth, someone centrist with trust, gravitas and common sense walks in and cleans house.

We are looking for one solid R candidate to challenge Obama. Wouldn't it be great if the country had two solid candidates to chose from.

Trump also has a political track record that will not stand up to scrutiny. I forget the details, but remember that there is plenty of stuff in there that would really annoy most of us here.

I am bummed to see how high Obama's poll numbers actually are.

Generally I think the Reps have been playing the Libyan thing badly-- typified perhaps by Newt's (apparent?) flip flop-- which I think cost him a lot of credibility. Imagine the ads BO could run with that footage! In 2008 I was very strong for him and very disappointed when the Fred Thompson boomlet used up the oxygen that Newt thought he would need were he to run, but now I have a "Show me what you got" attitude.

For reasons both of genuine patriotism as well as political advantage, the Reps (and we here I might add) need to take an attitude of "this has been badly done (perhaps giving most of the credit to Hillary ) but for the good of the country we hope it works out."

That may well be, but IMHO as good Americans we must not wish or work for it to be so in order to politically hurt Obama-- nor should we been seen as wishing or working for American failure. Leave that to the Progressive Dems as they did to us in Iraq.

I don't think the point is whether I/we agree with Baraq. We don't!!! The point is that at the water's edge we should be very careful with partisan bickering.

I would be delighted if one of Kadaffy's henchmen were to put one bullet through both his ears and some sort of national reconciliation coalition government were to form even though it would be to Baraq's political benefit. I would be delighted if our course of action earned us respect and good feelings in the Arab world, in the Muslim world. I'm not saying this is likely, but who the hell knows? I'm certainly not saying that Baraq went about any of this very well, merely that I wish our country success.

I certainly like the spirit of the rebels I see in news clips. Most of them seem like real people, bearing arms in spontaneously formed well-unorganized militias against one genuine anus of a leader, with an intuitive desire for something freer than what they know now. Its a spirit that America used to be known for supporting.

Tell that group that one of their tribesmen converted to christianity and see what happens.

We once supported an oppressed people in a country called Afghanistan. We are still receiving their gratitude and goodwill to this day, yes?

Remember how we protected Bosnian muslims? I think their gratitude can be summed up in the "allah akbar" shouted as a bosnian muslim went on a shooting rampage in Salt Lake City, or "allah akbar" as a bosnian muslim shot our troops in a German airport shuttle recently.

I will watch for Cuomo. The Dems also need to start lining up and pre-positioning. The backup quarterback can get called in at any time!

Hillary (I HATE to say) seems to have a new found confidence in the aftermath of saying that she will never serve in any capacity ever again, and empowered in the void of an AWOL President. Remember that Carville already split with Obama over the gulf, Rahm has moved out, and the real leftists have drawn lines in the sand with the President. There is still a Dem power base outside the White House to contend with. Hillary is certainly not what I had in mind. I would like to see it come from one of the retiring, sane, moderate Democrat Senators, Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Webb, and several others come to mind, but they have no money or power base. They need to raise they stature now and in 2012 even if their plan is 2016.

Doug,I don't know if you read Drudge or not but today headline includes a poll with Hillary at a 67% approval rating!!! She certainly appears to me the most stressed and unhappy Sec of State I can recall.

I have been trying to think of a way the Republicans can figure out a better way to appeal to middle class voters or those middle voters who feel the rich keep getting richer. The "right" has NEVER been able to address this except with some vague dubious "trickle down stuff". Yet it is plainly obvious the middle class are working harder for less and there is as always a super rich group that just keeps getting richer no matter what.

If conservative policies makes can come up with better ideas to "level the playing field" so everyone has a more equal chance of succeeding than that would be a good strategy. Governments job should not be :

social engineeringtaxing and spending to alter society up the wazoooo.

It should be to ensure laws and regulations are followed, not gamed, not circumvented.

For example,Simplify the tax code for all so the wealthy can't game the system.Companies like Walmart should not get some discount on say a local tax (that no one else can get). They could build there store in a given area and compete with competitors without this. Yes I know they create jobs, and localities feel they need to offer them a free deal to get them to bring business to the area.

But this type of gamesmanship clearly makes for an unequal playing field and is skewed to the rich.Isn't this what the middle class resent? Isn't this what many see as unfair?

If government has the same rules, regs. and opportunities for everyone who takes risk, can raise the investment etc than this might be an answer the right can use to address concerns for some in the middle class who feel trapped.

Trickle down wealth is certainly better than trickle up poverty but it isn't much of an answer to a middle class that has been relatively stagnant for decades.

Ask any grass-roots Republican, and they will tell you that what gets them out of bed in the morning is the prospect of defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Ask them who is going to do it, and be met with sigh.

The GOP presidential primary race is now—honestly—in early full swing. Candidates are filling out paperwork, snapping up operatives, and prepping for the first debate (just a few weeks away). There is a heady feeling that this Republican contest will prove the most unique in half a century: It boasts an unusually wide-open field and comes at a tipping point for both the party and the country.

All that's missing? Any clear voter enthusiasm for the obvious candidates. Until, or if, a candidate figures out how to become that object of inspiration, this could be a slow ride.

These are crudely drawn caricatures. But they are also an acknowledgment that many in the field are starting with very real liabilities, ones the contenders must yet confront. Mr. Romney is going to have to address RomneyCare; Mr. Gingrich is going to have to address marital infidelities; Mr. Barbour is going to have to address the confederate flag. It's as if GOP voters know these discussions must happen and are already weary. They want a candidate who is 24/7 talking about ObamaCare, spending reform, and world leadership—not Bristol Palin's performance on "Dancing with the Stars."

It ought to be of concern to the presumptive field, too, that grass-roots and influential Republicans continue to spend most of their energy and daydreams on people who are either: a) not running—New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; b) were all but unknown a year ago—Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and pizza magnate Herman Cain; or c) might not even be Republican—Donald Trump.

View Full Image

Chad Crowe .The polls ought to be even more concerning for "known" candidates. It is one thing for Mr. Pawlenty or Mr. Daniels to be polling in the single digits; they are relatively new names. But what primary voter is unfamiliar with Mr. Romney, who ran second to John McCain? Or Mrs. Palin, the veep nominee? Or Mike Huckabee, of Iowa fame? If history were a guide, one of them ought to be pulling a third of primary voters today. Instead, "there is not a single Republican who can claim support from as many as one in five primary supporters," says GOP pollster and co-founder of Resurgent Republic Whit Ayres. He suggests that some candidates stuck in the low double digits might already have "fatal flaws."

History, in this case, is no guide. The Republican Party has a tradition of nominating the next guy in line. In 1976 it nominated Ford over Reagan: It was Ford's due. Reagan's due came after that, and George H.W. Bush's due after that, and . . . straight through to Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, for one, is betting that tradition still holds, and that he can burst onto the scene as the anointed one.

Good luck with that. For the first time since the 1940s, the Republican field truly is open. And that is because of a cataclysmic shift in the GOP and independent electorate, one that many in the field seem not yet to have understood. The contenders are out there, dutifully bashing President Obama, chiding Congress for not being tougher, complaining about spending and Libya and gas prices. GOP voters want to hear that. And they want so much more.

This is a group of voters that may not like Mr. Obama, but they respect his skills. They want somebody who can match him in charisma and communication. This is a group of voters disillusioned by Republican behavior. They elected the GOP last year, but mostly as a protest vote against Mr. Obama. They now want somebody—preferably a new face, without the baggage—who can articulate a vision for the party and reassure it that it really is in new, strong, capable hands.

These are voters who every day are seeing national headlines about reformist governors—Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Mr. Christie, Ohio's John Kasich—and making comparisons. That may not be fair, since many of the presidential contenders are no longer in office. Then again, many in the electorate are wondering why they never read these headlines when those contenders were in fact in office.

Put it all together—the desire for a hard-charging, big-thinking, articulate, new face—and the interest in the Christies and Rubios makes sense. That isn't to say that those already getting in can't win over the electorate. But if they want to—if they want to generate the gigantic voter enthusiasm that will be needed to knock off a sitting president—they are going to have to start being the Next (and New) Big Thing. Nothing less, in this environment, is going to thrill.

"As for Bolton: He has not a chance in the world. He is exclusively about foreign affairs, has no track record of any domestic political issues, and no political experience whatsoever."

If he is articulate on foreign policy, he would hold his own just fine IMO on economic issues against this incumbent. Having the facts on your side is an advantage. (Time spent at AEI I think meant sharing ideas back and forth with people like Jack Kemp.) No elective experience whatsoever is true! No political experience isn't quite right as he was UN Ambassador and got a little practice being the lightning rod for having principles in a place where that is not appreciated. He also served previously just below cabinet level at DOJ and State Depts for Reagan and HW Bush, worked on non-proliferation, worked on the Scalia nomination for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

I think Crafty is right, too bad from my point of view. All these candidates have holes in their resumes, so I keep an open mind. It may come down to who can articulate well in the debates and sound Presidential in a crowded field. If nominated, his lack of domestic policy details could work right into a Paul Ryan type selection for VP. The attacks can come from the no. 2.

I recall that he was very controversial when appointed to the UN, needed a recess appointment. I wonder who within the Bush Cheney circles was advocating for him. Doesn't seem like Bush's type. The controversy against him seemed to be that he had a similar views about the usefulness of the UN as several of us here have. They were losing the vote of a RINO or 2 on the committee and couldn't hit 60 votes in the senate. Looking back, any organization that had Ghaddafy on the human rights commission might deserve a little criticism and skepticism.

My take is I have been concerned about lack of political experience and not sure of his domestic skills.

From a foreign policy view I love the guy. I really love to hear him when he gives his views on foreing affairs. I turn up the volume and tune in every time he is on.

It is really great and refreshing to hear someone speak about the US in a global picture point of view who actually holds the interests of the US as paramount and not as just another country in a see of countries with the whole concept of "country" as seen as ancient and dark ages.

He needs to go on the road and start giving speeches and promoting himself. Given some time we hope he will improve. He is a first rate intellect and appears to be able to synthesize info. and learn from it quickly.

As for resume, some can overcome that. Look at the One. Almost a zero resume. Of course he had the entire progressive movement cover for him.

In lots of ways I love Bolton, but not only would the Pravdas have it in for him but I suspect he would have quite the tin ear on many domestic issues. Furthermore, has he ever run for anything? There's a lot to be learned about how our political system works before one is up to being a good president , , ,

With each new war his non-foreign policy gains traction. With each new trillion in debt he wins more people over to his spending discipline ideas. If we project these trends forward he will be President when we have 8 wars and maybe 50 trillion in debt. It shouldn't be too long now.

CCP, What a nice set up for my endorsement. (Out of the announced field of Pawlenty vs. Obama) I announce today (DB exclusive) my endorsement of Gov. Tim Pawlenty for President and my availability to work as a paid adviser to the campaign and to his administration.

I have written about him previously, to the reaction of a yawn around here. Others didn't find him exciting. Borrowing $1.6 trillion a year is exciting. 9% unemployment and still killing more industries, that's exciting. Handing our missile defense to Russia and weakening our alliances, that's exciting. I'm not looking for any more excitement!

I'm looking for a grounded candidate that will lead with common sense conservatism. Pawlenty won in Minnesota twice (with less than 50%), and had to govern against extremely high majorities of the opposing party in the legislature. He implemented some cuts from the previous Governor (famous wrestler) and held the line on taxes, balanced 8 budgets, alienated about the right amount of people on both sides.

He is an easy to underestimate politician. He has been out doing all the ground work that these candidates need to do, from becoming McCain's first choice (oops) for VP at one point, to appearing very regularly on all the national shows building a comfort level with the mainstream media questioning, speaking at CPAC, visiting the wars and frequenting all the early primary states, hiring the money people, etc.

Like all Presidents who come from a Governor background, he has executive experience but not foreign policy experience. Only Bolton passes him up on that but Bolton lacks the elected and executive experience.

Pawlenty from MN is a middle state in population and economy. I like to look first to Governors of the largest states as having American governing experience closest to being President, but no Reagans are lurking out there.

Pawlenty served two full terms and left things in reasonably good shape pushing MN away from the dubious highest tax states distinction. You wouldn't know that from an attacking editorial in last Sunday's Minneapolis Red Star Tribune. Like all states, MN faces a deficit - if you project forward large enough spending increases.

I wrote previously I have met him and talked with him on 3 occasions. He sat with my daughter and I at a dinner and asked her all about school and her activities relating it to his daughters of similar age. He is a very approachable and personable guy.

His strength is that he promotes and presents conservatism in a non-threatening way. (For example, I think Huckabee is less conservative but more threatening to moderates and independents. Palin is threatening and polarizing. Bachmann also.) Without the charisma or magnetism of say a Marco Rubio, Pawlenty can only win by being consistent and grounded as the more flashy players stumble. All the top players have key defects and someone from this second tier is very likely to win, not many are truly stepping forward with both feet as Pawlenty did and offering to jump into this horrific game we call Presidential politics. The referendum in Nov. 2012 has to be on the incumbent and the direction of the country, not on the polarizing past or statements of the challenger. The task in 2012 is not to draw attention to yourself as the candidate, it is to draw attention to the needs of the nation.

Dougthanks. I repsect and agree with your opinions so your endorsement means a lot to me as such to keep in my front running list.

FWIW I still think that a Republican could clean up if he addresses issue of the "middle class" which I still feel like is lackluster for conservatives.

The middle class absolutely has stagnated. The fat cats are getting richer. The bankers salaries have gone up?!

Something is really wrong with this picture. Republicans do need to address this to keep middle class people from turning to governemnet largesse to bail them out.

This is in my judgement the big challenge for the hearts and minds of voters who are the backbone of America. It certainly is their pocketbooks "stupid". A take-off on it's the economy stupid.

I figured out the answer that Republicans can express. That is that all of us really do have equal chance to succeed. government need only truly treat everyone equal and enforce regs already on the books. For example: Walmart cannot get a tax break in some small town without anyone else being able to get the same break.

Please see this article from this week's Economist which is akin to what I am saying:

*****Marx, Mervyn or Mario?What is behind the decline in living standards? Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition ARE you better off than you were two years ago? Although the economic recovery in the developed world is almost two years old, the average Westerner would probably answer “No”.

The authorities have applied shock and awe in the form of fiscal and monetary stimulus. They have prevented the complete collapse of the financial sector—bankers’ pay has certainly held up just fine. The corporate sector is also doing well. Even if banks are excluded, the profits of S&P 500 companies were up by 18.7% last year, says Morgan Stanley.

But the benefits of recovery seem to have been distributed almost entirely to the owners of capital rather than workers. In America total real wages have risen by $168 billion since the recovery began, but that has been far outstripped by a $528 billion jump in profits. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research reckons that this is the first time profits have outperformed wages in absolute terms in 50 years.

In Germany profits have increased by €113 billion ($159 billion) since the start of the recovery, and employee pay has risen by just €36 billion. Things look even worse for workers in Britain, where profits have risen by £14 billion ($22.7 billion) but aggregate real wages have fallen by £2 billion. A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, found that the median British household had suffered the biggest three-year fall in real living standards since the early 1980s.

Are these trends a belated vindication of Karl Marx? The bearded wonder wrote in “Das Kapital” that: “It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse.” But Marx also predicted a decline in profit margins in capitalism’s dying throes, suggesting some confusion in his analysis.

A more positive view of this divergence between capital and wages is that developed economies had become too dependent on consumption and had to switch to an export- and investment-led model. That was the view of Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, when he said in January that “the squeeze in living standards is the inevitable price to pay for the financial crisis and subsequent rebalancing of the world and UK economies.”

That reasoning might work for Britain and America. But it is hard to apply to Germany, where unit labour costs have been held down for a decade and where, if the economy does need to be rebalanced, it is arguably in favour of consumption.

There is also a longer-term trend to explain. Wages still account for a much greater slice of income than profits, but labour’s share has been in decline across the OECD since 1980. The gap has been particularly marked in America: productivity rose by 83% between 1973 and 2007, but male median real wages rose by just 5%.

The decline in labour’s share has also been accompanied by an increased inequality of incomes, something that economists have struggled for years to explain. Mean wages, which include the earnings of chief executives and sports stars, have risen much faster than the median. This premium for “talent” may reflect globalisation as the elite are able to move to the countries where their skills are most appreciated. Or it may reflect changes in technology, which have generated outsize rewards for those people most able to take advantage of them.

An alternative explanation has been to blame the decline in trade-union membership. In the 1960s and 1970s powerful unions in manufacturing industries like cars were able to demand higher wages. But high-paying blue-collar jobs have been in decline since then. John Van Reenen, the director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, reckons that privatisation has also led to a decline in labour’s share of the cake. Managers of newly privatised industries tend to lay off workers as their focus shifts from empire-building to profit maximisation.

One factor that should perhaps get more emphasis is the role of the financial sector. Central banks have repeatedly cut or held down interest rates over the past 25 years in an attempt to boost bank profits and prop up asset prices. With this subsidy in place, is it surprising that earnings in finance have outpaced wages for other technologically skilled jobs?

Attempts to remove that subsidy are met by threats from international banks to move elsewhere. This is a little reminiscent of the protection rackets run by the gangsters in Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather”. It is as if the finance sector is saying: “Nice economy you got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.”****

Well I agree with Trump on the absence of Bamster's birth ceritficate. I too question is this the biggest fraud ever hoisted on America. Where is it? It is no where to be found. Why not? Not a peep from the Bamster team except to kill the messengers -they are all "crazy".

INteresting the Dem Gov of Hawaii can't even find it! Yet he is states he can vouch that Bamster was born in the US 50 years ago! He remebers because he knew the family. Yet no one else remembers anything about Bamster from high school, college or anywhere else till he shows up at Harvard.

Even Beck is calling Trump wrong for questioning this?

I don't get it. Where is his birth certificate? Did it say Muslim? Did it ever exist? Would a white Christian parent or grandparents in 1961 announce the birth of a black illegitimate baby of a Muslim foreign born father in the newspaper?

How Is Race Determined on a Birth Certificate?By Amber Keefer, eHow Contributor

. Identifying Information

Birth certificates contain a good deal of information, much of it personal identifying information. The types of details recorded vary among jurisdictions. Some birth certificates indicate the infant's birth order among his or her siblings. Race and ethnicity may also be included, but not always. In some cases, the certified copy records the parents' address and the name and signature of the attending physician at the time the infant was born.

Recording Race

Births in the U.S. are registered locally. The information is then forwarded to both a regional and national center, where the statistics are compiled. In some states, both the mother and father's race are noted on the birth certificate, although certain jurisdictions list only the mother's race. Basic race categories are Black, White, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI). Some birth certificates allow for the listing of multiple races.

Race for Statistical Purposes

Some states ask parents for other information that is not included on a certified copy of the birth certificate. This may include mother and father's race and ethnicity, highest level of education completed and type of occupation. Many state departments of health now ask parents to complete a birth certificate worksheet that provides information to help hospitals prepare a child's birth certificate. Much of the information requested is for statistical purposes and is considered to be confidential. Information that may not appear on the birth certificate includes the mother's/father's date of birth; social security number; birthplace; and city, township or borough where they reside. Race and ethnicity of the parents also may not appear on the child's birth certificate.

Types of Birth Certificates

In the U.S., each state's Office of Vital Statistics or Division of Vital Records keeps a record of each birth, issuing certified copies of the certificate when requested. The hospital where the birth occurs forwards the information to the state. A short form birth certificate or wallet-size birth card usually contains information such as the name of the person to whom the certificate is being issued, and the person's sex, date of birth and county of birth. A file number and the date the birth was filed are also included on the card.The long form birth certificate is a copy of the original birth record prepared by the hospital or physician who delivered the baby. This document includes the legal name of the person to whom the certificate is being issued, the person's date of birth, mother's maiden name, father's name and county of birth. Other information includes a file number, date the record was filed and date the birth certificate was issued. Long forms usually include the race of the parents.

“Her storytelling ability and word usage (coming from me, who has written many bestsellers), is not at a very high level,” he penned. Although Trump and I have had our differences in the past, I never felt it was personal. In fact, until now, I have refrained from noting that I once got an aggrieved message from him in which he misspelled the word “too.”

But about the letter. Mainly, it’s a list of alleged evidence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Trump has made this the centerpiece of his faux presidential campaign, falling further and further into the land of the lunatic fringe. I find this a disturbing spectacle — a little like seeing a guy you know from the neighborhood suddenly turn up in the middle of Times Square with his face painted blue and yelling about space aliens.

“Bill Ayers wrote ‘Dreams From My Father,’ I have no doubt about it,” Trump told Joe Scarborough, who reported on Politico.com.

Ayers is the former ’60s radical who became a huge Republican talking point in 2008 because he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate. It’s a pretty big jump from coffee and cookies to writing an entire book, but I guess that’s what neighbors are for.

“That first book was total genius and helped get him elected,” Trump continued. “But you can tell Obama did the second book himself because it read like it was written by somebody of average intelligence with a high school education.”

Did I mention that, in his letter, Trump complained about my calling him a “birther” because the word was “very derogatory and meant in a derogatory way”? Obama, of course, graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School — if you can believe Columbia and Harvard Law.

“Three weeks ago I thought he was born in this country. Right now I have some real doubts. I have people that actually have been studying it, and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump announced on “Today.”

Trump does not actually seem to have people studying, or even Googling. Still, he sounds very self-assured. This is because before he was a reality-show host, he was in the New York real estate business, a profession in which it is vital to be able to say imaginary things with total certainty. (“I have five other people who are begging me to sell them this property. Begging.”)

Let’s run over some of his arguments:

THE GRANDMOTHER STORY “His grandmother in Kenya stated, on tape, that he was born in Kenya and she was there to watch the birth,” Trump wrote. This goes back to a trans-Atlantic telephone call that was made in 2008 by Ron McRae, an Anabaptist bishop and birther, to Sarah Obama, the president’s 86-year-old stepgrandmother. He asked her, through an interpreter whether she was “present when he was born in Kenya.” The translator responded: “She says, yes, she was. She was present when Obama was born.”

It is at this point that some of the tapes floating around the Web stop, which means that the listener doesn’t get to hear the follow-up, which makes it very clear that Sarah Obama misunderstood. The full conversation ends with the interpreter saying, for the umpteenth time: “Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father, his father was learning there. The state of Hawaii.”

THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE If only Hawaii made its birth records public, and charged people a thousand dollars a pop to look at them, the state’s budget problems would be solved by the conspiracy theorists. However, it doesn’t. If you were born in Hawaii and request a copy of your birth certificate, you get a certification of live birth, which the federal government accepts for passports. Barack Obama requested his in 2007, and his campaign posted it on the Internet.

“A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn’t have a serial number. It doesn’t have a signature,” said Trump on “Today.”

The document has the stamped signature of the state registrar. The University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org made a pilgrimage to the Obama campaign headquarters, examined the document, felt the seal, checked the serial number and reported that it looked fine.

THE EMPTY PHOTO ALBUM “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere,” Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference to great applause. “In fact, I’ll go a step further. The people that went to school with him, they never saw him; they don’t know who he is. It’s crazy.”

This week on CNN, Suzanne Malveaux played Trump clips of Hawaiians reminiscing about the schoolchild Obama for a documentary the network had done on the president.

“Look, I didn’t say that ... If he was 3 years old or 2 years old or 1 year old and people remember him, that’s irrelevant,” Trump responded. “You have to be born in this country.”

Recent polls have shown Trump running second among potential Republican primary voters. I believe this is not so much an indication of popularity as a desperate plea to be delivered from Mitt Romney.

She gets a couple of things wrong. When Obama's popularity fell and when Donald joined the fray, being a birther moved from the fringe slightly back to the conversation. Also now that the fight against Obama is engaged on all the real issues, the 'birther' question is a distraction for him not his opponents. Trump isn't even a candidate much less running for the wrong reasons.

Collins starts with the Kenya story. Fine. But she gives it credibility by bringing it up again - in the NY Times! Stanley Ann never went to Kenya, she never had a relationship with Barack Sr. IMO but that story sits out there stewing because Barack Obama decided to spend $2 million dollars in legal fees instead of tell us whatever the true story is about his origins.

The accusation about Ayers writing the first book is very likely true. Collins can scoff at that but scholars have loked at sotry lines and wording comparisons - it makes perfect sense. It isn't that it is the first autobiography to have a ghost writer, it is that his real story is still very much unknown, he is the the leader of the free world (actually Sarchozy currently holds that position) and totally missed by POTH thinking, Ayers is not just a writer - he is an admitted terrorist and (IMO) an enemy of the United States. That is a small deal to leftist journalism but a firestorm that Obama has left still smoldering near the kindling pile.

Collins who I've never heard of doesn't understand media focus like Trump. Obama was born in the U.S. but there is something false about his story and something he is intentionally covering. Trump is attacking because the door was left open. He makes it clear his reasons IF he runs are those other things, then continues the attack.

Obama will either have to clear this up or let it go on with his defenders getting mopre and more obscure. If he clears it up, then someone like Trump will start asking for his college records, and his medical records. He is an admitted coke addict, cigarette addict, if he was new to the scene and not owning the media, there are some other questions inquiring minds would want to know before trusting him with the 3am phone call.

This is hardball politics. Obama got where he is knocking opponents off of ballots. Giuliani had his troubles. Edwards is in hiding. Hillary survived felony level commodity non-tradings, Gingrich faces mean scrutiny, Huckabee pardoned a mass murderer, etc. Nixon gone, Reagan ended his Presidency under the cloud of a controversy. Cheney lost all power after he shot the lawyer. The exception was for Obama to get a free pass, but the rule at that level is strict scrutiny. He wasn't born in Kenya but he will have to start answering some questions or keep facing the music.

We know less about Obama than we know about George Washington. I think he was most likely born in the US, but there are many things he's trying to hide. Why is the "most brilliantest president evah" hiding his school records?

I was listening to radioman Michael Smerkonish who stated that Bamster wrote in his book Dreams that he found a newspaper article along with his birth certificate and that this incidental mention was evidence he has a certificate and had it in his possession. Smerkonish than goes on to say that this is signifcant because it was "before" Bamster ran for office. Yet his premise is obviously worng. Bmaster's book is obviously a political document. Certainly he (Ayers) only wrote this book because he intended to run for office. Why else would a ~34 y.o. write such a book?

In any case even his own book raises questions about what Bamster is obviously hiding about his birth:

****January 17, 2011 What Obama Has Said about His Own BirthBy Jack CashillWhile Democrat Congressman Frank Pallone read the "natural born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor last Thursday, a spirited female in the audience shouted out, "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus!"

Later that day, NBC's Brian Williams improbably chose to assign blame for the woman's outburst on newly elected House speaker John Boehner. "How much responsibility do you feel?" Williams asked pointedly.

"The state of Hawaii has said Obama was born there," said Boehner, who is no more intimate with the "Birther" movement than Williams himself. "That was good enough for me."

The person Williams should have been asking about "responsibility" is the president. Obama's conspicuous fabrications over the years have caused even the sober among us to doubt his origins story.

In September 2009, President Obama addressed the nation's schoolchildren writ large, an innovation that struck many on the right as a wee bit too Big-Brotherly. In the talk, Obama asked America's students to take personal responsibility. That was all well enough.

Missed in the media hubbub, however, was his take on why this could be difficult for some students. "I get it," he told the kiddies. "I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother."

In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama made the same claim. "He had left Hawaii back in 1963," he wrote of Obama Sr., "when I was only two years old."

When Obama wrote this in Dreams, he may have been relating what he had himself been told. By 2009, he knew better, but so vested was he in the story, and so useful had it been in his rise, that he continued to dissemble, even before millions of schoolchildren.

There are clues in Dreams, however, which suggest that Obama was creating a fiction for future use that he already knew to be untrue. He tells of coming across an article from the Honolulu Advertiser celebrating Barack Obama, Sr.'s planned grand tour of mainland universities on his triumphant way to Harvard.

Obama writes ruefully in Dreams, "No mention is made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure." What Obama does not mention is that the article was dated June 22, 1962.

Obama was reportedly born on August 4, 1961. He was not yet a year old at the time Obama Sr. left Hawaii for good. More to the point, Obama fails to mention that he and his mother, Ann Dunham, were living in Seattle at the time and had been since at least August 19, 1961, the day she enrolled at the University of Washington.

In short, the family never lived together. There was no Obama family. The Obama camp surely knew this by the time he ran for president, but Obama kept dissembling about his origins nonetheless.

Although Obama's African relatives seem to have accepted the president as one of their own, there is even less clarity on the Kenyan side. According to Dreams, Obama Sr. had children with at least four different women, two of them American, and he occasionally circled back to the first of the four, Kezia.

Ruth Nidesand, a white American, had two children by Obama Sr., Mark and David, the latter of whom died young in a motorcycle accident. She was also forced to raise Kezia's two oldest children, just as the woman Obama knows as "Granny," the family storyteller, was forced to raise Obama Sr. as her own. In another time and place, the Obamas would have had their own reality TV show.

Questions linger about the paternity of many of these offspring. In Dreams, Obama's cryptic and contrarian Aunt Sarah would tell her presumed nephew, " ... the children who claim to be Obama's are not Obama's." Obama must have wondered whether she was referring to him.

Curiously, when Obama found the article about Obama Sr.'s departure, he found it "folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms." Later in Dreams, in a passage heretofore overlooked, Obama unwittingly reveals that there may have been problems with that birth certificate.

On the occasion of his father's death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. "Unlike my mum," Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, "Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was."

Ruth obviously could produce a marriage license and a birth certificate for her son Mark. Ann Dunham apparently could not do the same for her son Barack, at least not one that could tie him to Obama Sr. -- not even with a potential payoff on the table.

The long form birth certificate could pose a number of problems other than country of origin, including the date of Obama's birth, the state of his birth, and the identity of his father. Any one of these revelations could unravel the yarn that Obama has been spinning.

These problems derive from the fact that Ann Dunham enrolled at university on August 19, 1961 and returned to Hawaii only after Obama Sr. had left Hawaii for good. Both of these facts are more firmly established than President Obama's Honolulu birth on August 4, 1961. In my forthcoming book, Deconstructing Obama, I review these possibilities in some detail.

The failure of the mainstream media to even address the inconsistencies in Obama's story is downright shameful. That failure has created a windstorm of curiosity that is becoming increasingly difficult for the media to ignore. The final responsibility for the outburst in Congress last week is theirs.

Jack Cashill's new book, Deconstructing Obama, can be pre-ordered here, with a special offer for American Thinker readers.****

Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for PresidentBy C. Edmund WrightEven those conservatives who will not vote for Herman Cain to win the Republican nomination should hope that he does run -- and that his candidacy lasts a long time during the nomination process, perhaps even succeeding.

Not the least of reasons is that a Cain candidacy would be a hoot. And I do not mean that in a derisive or condescending way at all. I mean that it would be the kind of doggone honest and refreshing campaign the country needs. It would be the opposite of the stale McCain run. Cain does not speak Washington drivel, and he's not afraid to take a strong position. Dare I say it? He'll call a spade a spade, and he'll reach across the aisle only to smack someone down. He will admit what McCain would not: that we do have a lot to fear from an Obama presidency.

Herman Cain is peerless among the long list of potential candidates -- and his impact on the field and the direction of the party will be in the direction of free enterprise, less government, and speaking with boldness -- you know, pretty much the opposite of what the GOP has done since Newt's Congress lost steam in the mid- to late '90s.

To codify, here are the top reasons to support Cain based on my observation of the man over a period of years:

10. The "race card": A Cain candidacy not only takes the race card off the table -- it might in fact put it in the Republicans' camp. Frankly, Cain is "blacker" than Obama in every way imaginable. He does not have a white parent. He has a slight black dialect and does not "turn it off" to impress Harry Reid or Joe Biden, nor does he "amp it up" to impress Jeremiah Wright.

As Obama's presidency has shown, America did not need a black president. What America needs is to just get over the race thing, period. Cain is over it, and I bet he would flat-out tell Obama to get over it, too.

9. Been there, done that: Cain brings a lot of "been there, done that" to the office, and that is in stark contrast not only to Obama, but to almost anyone else running. Cain is not shy about making fun of politicians' lack of understanding of the reality of the free-enterprise system, and certainly no group embodies that ignorance more than Obama and his administration. Making a payroll; dealing with employees, the IRS, the INS, insurance companies; dealing with rents, lawsuits, unemployment commissions, etc. -- Cain has been there, done that. Obama has not.

8. Not forgettable: One Herman Cain soundbite is worth ten from Tim...um, what's his name? Oh, yeah, Pawlenty. Cain's boldness and confidence and accent and voice will cut through the noise out there, and this makes his candidacy dangerous even if he faces some financial handicaps versus other folks running. He is a talk radio host now by trade and knows how to hold folks' attention.

7. Will break every rule set for him by "strategists": This one might be my favorite. Cain has never counted on political strategists to get him where he is now, and this alone separates him from all other candidates. Lord help the first "strategist" from the RNC who advises Cain to "tone it down" or "soften his position."

6. Will really get under the skin of the Washingtonian class: A Cain candidacy would drive David Brooks to apoplexy. Charles Krauthammer -- doing his best to run off legions of his longtime fans -- would no doubt find some Palinesque reasons to object to Cain. And those are the conservative ruling-class folks. Imagine what the liberals will say about this non-Ivy league, non-elected Southern black guy running for president. I can't wait to hear it.

5. Will not get in way of the 2010 Congress' momentum: This might be the most important reason to support a Cain candidacy. He has gained momentum as part of the Tea Party movement that was the defining factor in the 2010 congressional elections. A Cain candidacy would be in lockstep with what the country told Congress it wanted in November 2010. It will be an extension of the 2010 campaign, and that's preferable to a presidential election that will distract from the 2010 results.

4. Never held office before: While Cain's opponents -- on both sides of the aisle -- are licking their chops over this one, they should rethink this. Mr. Cain already has a lethal (can we still say that?) response to this one: "Everyone in Washington has held public office before. How's that working out for you?" Case closed.

3. Ann Coulter's second-favorite pick: So Ann's first choice is Chris Christie, and Cain comes in second. With some 25 names floating around out there, being number 2 on anyone's list is pretty good at this point in the game. Besides, I predict that Cain will overtake Christie on Ann's list. Cain is more conservative and even less afraid to speak his mind. While I love Christie's boldness on the issues where he is conservative, he will wobble off to the Jersey left a bit on some issues. Cain will not.

2. Will not be cowed by the new speech police: The attempt by the left to silence conservatives in light of the Tucson shootings will not be the last. And you can bet that when they do, some on the right will recoil and fall prey, regardless of how mindless the attempts are. If you have followed Herman Cain, you know that this will not be an issue for him.

And the number one reason to support a Cain candidacy? It opens the door to a ticket of Cain and Haley Barbour in some order. OK, maybe this is not earthshaking, but imagine the "racist Republican Party" putting forth a national ticket including a drawlin' Mississippi good ol' boy and a black businessman who still speaks a smidgen of Ebonics.

This would be the hope and change America thought they were getting in 2008. This would be ticket not so much of "racial healing" as it would be the ticket of "just get over the race thing." Because liberalism is joined at the hip with the race pimp industry, a liberal African-American cannot by definition do for the country what a black conservative can. A black liberal winning reinforces counterproductive stereotypes. A conservative black winning crushes them. Period.

Yes, I know that reasons number one and ten seem a lot alike. They are. We have just about destroyed our country trying to put this issue to bed, and the result is that tensions are higher than they were before Obama was elected. Which we predicted.

A Cain presidency would actually go a long way towards solving this. And besides, Mr. Cain has some great ideas for getting government out of our way and letting America be America again. And we all need that. 91 Comments on "Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President"

Republicans have not had a good candidate since 1988. In retrospect I am not sure how good he was. He led to Clinton. He led to international coalitions. He led to his son who got elected despite not being able to string two sentences together.

A few weeks ago Ann Coulter was telling us if Romney is the choice for the Rep. party we *will* lose.

A few days ago when discussing the prospect of Trump and trashing him up and down she changed her tune and said, Romney "could" win.

Bamster may very well win by default just as Clinton did in '96. That would be the definite end of the US as we know it. Can anyone imagine Bamster appointing more Supreme Court Justices? That would be the final nail in our coffins. I am glad I am older rather than younger. I don't give much of a shit anymore.

We have Cain, West, and Rubio and a few other up and comers but no one clearly there yet.

I don't understand the R "establishment's" calling for Cristie to run for President. They really think he is more ready then any of the others?